The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[S.A.T.A]

Not really funny dude, my great great grandfather was the Admiral of Travncore, under Vellu Thampi Dalwa. Yet the atrocities my own family has gone through, I am not going to take it in a lighter vein, especially unlike the jews, we havent got our justice or closure.

Adux you were supposed to take the comment about Upper castes biding their time in the lighter vein.My own views on the caste system is that it represents a singular threat to the cohesiveness and unity of the Hindu society,which is an absolute must if we are to inherit this nation.

 

[Virendra]

Kshetra - territory.
Kshatriya - caretaker or protector of territory.

Not just territory, but governence, law and order in general.
Also, can we please discuss Kings here as the thread was meant for and perhaps keep caste for another thread if its so important to wrestle it out.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[pmaitra]

Not just territory, but governence, law and order in general.
Also, can we please discuss Kings here as the thread was meant for and perhaps keep caste for another thread if its so important to wrestle it out.

Regards,
Virendra

Yes, you are right. I and also others mentioned that in the other thread where I quoted this from.

Kshetra - territory.
Kshatriya - caretaker or protector of territory.
Satrapi (Greek) - same as above, but specifically used as a governor or military commander.

Hence, Kshatriya includes soldiers, but also those who are not soldiers but are in charge of protecting and taking care of the territory, including governors and administrators.

 

[Rahul M]

Mister, I do not know how much you know about caste oppressing but downplaying it is shocking to me.My grandparents experienced casteist discrimination even post independence despite being from a powerful obc caste.And this at a time when we had legislation nullifying caste based discrimination.

There is no point in downplaying the evils of the caste system.

what is it with today's young people that they can't grasp the simplest ideas ??? our education system is a mess.

No one, least of all me is downplayng the evils of caste system as it existed in our times.

the point I was trying to make (which you utterly misconstructed) is that the cruel caste system we are familiar with did not exist in this form unchanged for thousands of years. no social institution perpetuates unchanged for that long.
at the time of chandragupta maurya for example, it was a much more gentler system, no more evil than any other feudal system and far less evil than most. that is what history tells us. comprende ?

let's deal in truth, even if they are unpleasant. satyemeva jayate and all that.

 

[Param]

what is it with today's young people that they can't grasp the simplest ideas ??? our education system is a mess.

No one, least of all me is downplayng the evils of caste system as it existed in our times.

the point I was trying to make (which you utterly misconstructed) is that the cruel caste system we are familiar with did not exist in this form unchanged for thousands of years. no social institution perpetuates unchanged for that long.
at the time of chandragupta maurya for example, it was a much more gentler system, no more evil than any other feudal system and far less evil than most. that is what history tells us. comprende ?

let's deal in truth, even if they are unpleasant. satyemeva jayate and all that.

Yeah I know that. I was not taking merely about the mauryas period.I know caste system was almost diluted during the various Scythian invasions. Sometimes Barbarians who invaded and settled here became Kshatriyas after some ceremonies.

I was talking about the entire historical context of caste system that includes the periods of highs and lows.

 

[Rahul M]

Yeah I know that. I was not taking merely about the mauryas period.I know caste system was almost diluted during the various Scythian invasions. Sometimes Barbarians who invaded and settled here became Kshatriyas after some ceremonies.

I was talking about the entire historical context of caste system that includes the periods of highs and lows.

fair enough, we are in agreement over most things then. 8) not sure about caste dilution during scythian period, they mostly took up the religion and customs of the locals.

Adux you were supposed to take the comment about Upper castes biding their time in the lighter vein.My own views on the caste system is that it represents a singular threat to the cohesiveness and unity of the Hindu society,which is an absolute must if we are to inherit this nation.

let's make that Indian society rather than hindu society.

No, says Kautilya, a people will naturally obey a high-born
king though he is weak, for the tendency of a prosperous people is
to follow a high-born king. Also they render the intrigues of a
strong but base-born person, unavailing, as the saying is, that
possession of virtues makes for friendship.[/I] [/url]

let's put things in context, chanakya was writing a manual for statecraft, he was dealing with reality as it existed, not an imagined romanticised society. if you read the whole book he comes out as an out and out realist with no illusions for human failing.

notice that he says "tendency of a prosperous people is to follow a high-born king", by that he is merely observing a trend, not judging whether that is fair or not. his personal view does not enter the situation.
the truth of his observation is borne out by thousands of dynasties all over the world who have sought to trace their origins to great kings and sometimes gods, in order to prove they were 'high born' and thereby legitimise their rule.
the pharaohs did it, alexander did it, medieval european history is full of genealogy studies of who descended from whom, much of babar's claim to leadership stemmed from the fact that he could trace his lineage to timur and chengis khan, closer to home the rajput dynasties claimed descent from sun !

before the popularity of modern concepts of meritocracy, people assumed that the son of a virtuous person would be virtuous in turn and the son of a good king would be good king in turn. all chanakya did was point out this fact.

it says nothing about chandragupta's origins.

 

[Manas7]

those who consider the mughals are not indian they should give a second thought over the jatt, gujjar and yadavs. they all have central asian and mongol descent.

I see there is penchant for indian ppl to link themselves with central asia ,almost status thing . shame .

I'm brahmin ,i look central asian . I feel so happy .

Its not like north india empty space , jatt, gujjar and yadavs these so called synthians came running to feel in the blanks.

People in north india look exactly they suppose to look and they don't central Asian . They look indian .
And scientific studies now conclusively proven north Indians are indigenous to north India and DNA wise much closer to the tribal living in the jungles of central india than central asia.

 

[pmaitra]

fair enough, we are in agreement over most things then. 8) not sure about caste dilution during scythian period, they mostly took up the religion and customs of the locals.


let's make that Indian society rather than hindu society.



let's put things in context, chanakya was writing a manual for statecraft, he was dealing with reality as it existed, not an imagined romanticised society. if you read the whole book he comes out as an out and out realist with no illusions for human failing.

notice that he says "tendency of a prosperous people is to follow a high-born king", by that he is merely observing a trend, not judging whether that is fair or not. his personal view does not enter the situation.
the truth of his observation is borne out by thousands of dynasties all over the world who have sought to trace their origins to great kings and sometimes gods, in order to prove they were 'high born' and thereby legitimise their rule.
the pharaohs did it, alexander did it, medieval european history is full of genealogy studies of who descended from whom, much of babar's claim to leadership stemmed from the fact that he could trace his lineage to timur and chengis khan, closer to home the rajput dynasties claimed descent from sun !

before the popularity of modern concepts of meritocracy, people assumed that the son of a virtuous person would be virtuous in turn and the son of a good king would be good king in turn. all chanakya did was point out this fact.

it says nothing about chandragupta's origins.

Excellent post. Good rebuttal to an otherwise attempted rhetoric, which, in reality, does not in any way prove that Chandragupta had Kshatriya lineage. As I have already mentioned, many translators write books and try to embed their own interpretations therein, which readers tend to absorb as having being said by Kautilya himself.

 

[Manas7]

Samrat Kharavela was the greatest king of Odisha and among one in india .He ruled a vast empire.

 

[Param]

Samrat Kharavela was the greatest king of Odisha and among one in india .He ruled a vast empire.

Now we can add one more King to the poll list.
And Kharavela was the one who defeated the powerful Indo Greek conqurer Menander.

 

[Ray]

Good to see no reported posts.

It appears that you all have reconciled your differences.

Keep up the good work so that we all benefit from your vast knowledge.

 

[pankaj nema]

Right Now Tipu Sultan has no votes

Some body please vote for him too .My vote is over

After ALL NO KING should be left behind with A ZERO vote

 

[Adux]

fair enough, we are in agreement over most things then. 8) not sure about caste dilution during scythian period, they mostly took up the religion and customs of the locals.


let's make that Indian society rather than hindu society.



let's put things in context, chanakya was writing a manual for statecraft, he was dealing with reality as it existed, not an imagined romanticised society. if you read the whole book he comes out as an out and out realist with no illusions for human failing.
.

 I will let SATA reply to this very sweetly put post to justify a man's contempt and bigoted views for people who he find's not worthy because of their birth, and cover's it on the garb saying 'hey everybody thinks this way, so why change', and we are supposed to vote this particular person as a great king and a great prime minister? Hey the Nazi's are doing it, so why not us too. I love the way the how pmaitra and RahulM tries to imply a meaning which is non-existing and explains the reason behind a man's thought 2000 years dead, the more insulting to my intelligence as well as other poster's here is the blatant lie, that is being pedalled around ; that caste at that point of time is some kind of meritocracy and changes with your success in life, so said RahulM and Pmaitra, but at the same time here they are justify the ouster of a King on the reasoning he wasn't born of high birth, but wasn't he born to father who was a King, maybe the father was a barber before he became a King, but according to their own theories of casteism during those days, which was according to pmaitra and RahulM similar to meritocracy, shouldn't that have changed. So what was the need to overthrow Dhana Nanda? I suggest the humble readers to go back few pages, and you will see that reasoning they brought out to counter my assertion of casteism by all Indian Kings,heck pmaitra even came up with a post where he shows how Chandragupta was actually a shudra became Kshatriya by the virtue he was a King and did some yagyna's 'bam' a Shudra transforms into a Kshatriya"¦ now after SATA has brought this paragraph out of Arthshastra written by Chankya himself, all of a sudden they say completely opposite of their earlier stance of 'meritocracy' and now all of a sudden Nanda is not good enough, because his father was barber, before his own father became a King. According to their earlier theory the first of the Nanda , Mahapadma Nanda who was the barber-king was of a low birth, but Dhana Nanda, the son of Mahapadma is not of low birth, he is the son of the King. Therefore he is Kshatriya by birth, if Caste changes with job's as they claim, then why did Chanakya see Dhana Nanda as of low birth, wasn't he the King? But as you can see from Arthshastra, for Chankya that wasn't good enough, so pmaitra's post about people converting Kshtariya after becoming the King goes for a toss, so does the whole meritocracy lie.
 Now comes the new one from them duplicitous duo, hey the world is like that, Chankya and Chandragupta was just being practical, if that is so? How is ChandraGupta Great?

And yes, it says much about Chandragupta's origins, that he was of high birth, much more higher than a Nanda King, who we all know was the son of a Shudra King. The reason Chankya gives Chandragupta why he is better than Dhana Nanda and should be the rightful ruler. So Caste is not going to change because one's ascend in life, it is as it is now. Bigoted. Chankya and Chandragupta was nothing but bigots.

 

[pankaj nema]

@ Adux

Why are you always so angry and so bitter ?

What exactly do you want

All hindus agree that caste system was horrible and here in this forum at least every Hindu
has said that

But an un equal society was not limited to India and Hindus alone

The Hindu converts to Islam were looked down upon

Have you heard of Ashrafs and Ajlafs in South Asian Islamic Context

Islam also had a caste system The Hindu converts DId not Rise in the social order

All that happened was they did not have to pay Jaziya

No society at that time whether China Russia EUrope Africa was free from Some or other form
of discrimination

That is why I have said before that inspite of the caste system ALL Lower caste Hindus did not convert

Maybe caste system in Kerala was more Horrible I dont know

 

[pmaitra]

 I will let SATA reply to this very sweetly put post to justify a man's contempt and bigoted views for people who he find's not worthy because of their birth, and cover's it on the garb saying 'hey everybody thinks this way, so why change', and we are supposed to vote this particular person as a great king and a great prime minister? Hey the Nazi's are doing it, so why not us too.

I have always maintained that the term Kshatriya is a varna and not a caste. This has been well discussed in the relevant thread. I don't need to wait for anyone's sweet response. Sweet as it may be, one needs to understand the etymological root of the term Kshatriya before even attempting to give a response.

I love the way the how pmaitra and RahulM tries to imply a meaning which is non-existing and explains the reason behind a man's thought 2000 years dead, the more insulting to my intelligence as well as other poster's here is the blatant lie, that is being pedalled around ; that caste at that point of time is some kind of meritocracy and changes with your success in life, so said RahulM and Pmaitra,

Even if we assumed that I do not know what Chanakya had in mind then, you do not know better. Hence, one has to go to the etymological roots of the term Kshatriya, and the 'Kshatriya lineage' theory gets tossed out the window.

• A person claiming to be of Kshatriya varna by virtue of his achievement and accomplishments is called meritocracy.
• A person claiming to be of Kshatriya caste by virtue of his ancestry is nepotism.

but at the same time here they are justify the ouster of a King on the reasoning he wasn't born of high birth, but wasn't he born to father who was a King, maybe the father was a barber before he became a King,

When did I justify the ouster of a King by virtue of his birth? Please quote or you are prevaricating.

but according to their own theories of casteism during those days, which was according to pmaitra and RahulM similar to meritocracy, shouldn't that have changed.

I did not write the theories nor create the Varna System. It is not my own theory. Again, this has been discussed in the relevant thread.

So what was the need to overthrow Dhana Nanda?

His inability or lack of concern towards the threats from the west (Greeks).

I suggest the humble readers to go back few pages, and you will see that reasoning they brought out to counter my assertion of casteism by all Indian Kings,

Try to humble yourself first before you ask others to be humble. Only then you will correctly understand what others are saying instead of cooking up a whole plethora of fairy tales and accusing others of having said those things, which they did not.

heck pmaitra even came up with a post where he shows how Chandragupta was actually a shudra became Kshatriya by the virtue he was a King and did some yagyna's 'bam' a Shudra transforms into a Kshatriya"¦

now after SATA has brought this paragraph out of Arthshastra written by Chankya himself, all of a sudden they say completely opposite of their earlier stance of 'meritocracy' and now all of a sudden Nanda is not good enough, because his father was barber, before his own father became a King.

S.A.T.A. brought out a paragraph that has nothing to do with Chandragupta's heritage or ancestry. I find his arguments full of obscurantism and lacking objectivity. Apparently, he, and you, do not understand the difference between (1) what Chanakya himself believed and (2) what he observed the prosperous people to believe or perceive.

According to their earlier theory the first of the Nanda , Mahapadma Nanda who was the barber-king was of a low birth, but Dhana Nanda, the son of Mahapadma is not of low birth, he is the son of the King. Therefore he is Kshatriya by birth, if Caste changes with job's as they claim, then why did Chanakya see Dhana Nanda as of low birth, wasn't he the King? But as you can see from Arthshastra, for Chankya that wasn't good enough, so pmaitra's post about people converting Kshtariya after becoming the King goes for a toss, so does the whole meritocracy lie.

That was definitely not my theory. Learn to read and back up your accusation by quotes, or else, keep those feverish fingers off the keyboard.

 Now comes the new one from them duplicitous duo, hey the world is like that, Chankya and Chandragupta was just being practical, if that is so? How is ChandraGupta Great?

Practicality is great, perhaps not to you, but to me and many others. If you want to live in la-la-land, by all means do so. It is not surprising that you fail to appreciate the great mind that Chanakya had.

And yes, it says much about Chandragupta's origins, that he was of high birth, much more higher than a Nanda King, who we all know was the son of a Shudra King. The reason Chankya gives Chandragupta why he is better than Dhana Nanda and should be the rightful ruler. So Caste is not going to change because one's ascend in life, it is as it is now. Bigoted. Chankya and Chandragupta was nothing but bigots.

It says nothing of Chandragupta's origins of high birth. I never said Chandragupta was Shudra. You made that up. I said he was a smlechha. Read the Arthashastra again. It clearly says that Aryan Society was broken up into four Varnas, which means, Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras were all Aryans and then we had those that were not part of this ensemble, and did not follow the laid out rules, were termed as smlechhas. Chandragupta was one among them, born into a family of peacock tamers. The greatness of Chanakya lies in the fact that he wanted pure meritocracy over nepotism. Chandragupta proved his merit, time and again, by defeating the Greeks, apart from the Nandas. Chanakya's greatness is not limited to that, but I will dwell on what is relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Param]

Yay, Chatrapati Shivaji at 3rd place ahead of Asoka:bounce: come on marathi manoos.jai maharashtra!

 

[Adux]

@ Adux

Why are you always so angry and so bitter ?

lol, you would thunk it. I should whoop out daisy's and chocolates at the topic and at the people who subjugated millions in this country. Nope unlike Pakis, I dont have Stockholm syndrome. Plus I also dont blame you for feeling that way, it happens when you loose.

What exactly do you want

Stop glorification of the past that has nothing to be glorify about. Stop with this stupid mentality that Hindu's are so silly innocent lambs. We arent.

All hindus agree that caste system was horrible and here in this forum at least every Hindu
has said that

Nope, they just say that. Much akin to Pakistani's saying their Islam is very secular, and they treat people of the religion with respect and equality. We all know that doesnt happen in Indian society.

But an un equal society was not limited to India and Hindus alone

I dont care about others. I refuse to be looked down upon on me or my ancestors.

The Hindu converts to Islam were looked down upon

How does it matter to me, when Hindu's look down upon their own fellow Hindu's,

Have you heard of Ashrafs and Ajlafs in South Asian Islamic Context

Do you really think I care.

Islam also had a caste system The Hindu converts DId not Rise in the social order

Just shows how the poor man cannot escape his fate. He can be all intelligent, brave, heck he even converted to seen as a equal, yet the evil that is caste system follows him into his new religion also.

All that happened was they did not have to pay Jaziya

lol. You do know that Islam has been in other places, they somehow dont have the above, that their caste or previous religion following them. You can thank the land of Hindu's for that.

No society at that time whether China Russia EUrope Africa was free from Some or other form
of discrimination

So I should just bend over and take it, and be silent at the glorification of one tyrant bigot after the other. Then you dont know me well.

That is why I have said before that inspite of the caste system ALL Lower caste Hindus did not convert

They werent organized. It is as simple as that.

Maybe caste system in Kerala was more Horrible I dont know

Caste system was horrible everywhere, Kerala just documented it, and somehow the people decided educate themselves, called on the higher caste for what they were, murderous inhumans.

 

[Adux]

Pmaitra,

That is some sweet snake oil you are pedaling, I am kind of enjoying your rolling in the mud. Semper Fi.

 

[pankaj nema]

@ param

Hey Param brother there are only a few Maharashtrians here I guess

So Shivaji is at the 3 rd spot .Though Shivaji is no way inferior to any other King on the list

How I wish there were more Maharashtrians here

 

[Param]

@ param

Hey Param brother there are only a few Maharashtrians here I guess

So Shivaji is at the 3 rd spot .Though Shivaji is no way inferior to any other King on the list

How I wish there were more Maharashtrians here

I want wake up the inner marathi manoos in every maharashtrian here.

Right now the Lion is dormant, once it wakes up even chandragupta will be left far behind.